Cryonics. Fiction and reality

Cryonics.Fiction and reality

 Francisco Cesar Pinheiro Rodrigues

Translator: Marianna Fernandes Perna 

As an author, I feel injusticed. Which probably doesn’t cause any estrangement or surprise for well-informed people. I imagine that no writer – either good or bad – considers himself entirely fulfilled. If he considers himself “the best”, he’s absolutely mistaken, for perfection is unattainable and incongruous with any kind of art. He certainly falls for some subtle nonsense  - even if he’s a Nobel, mixing winning money by writing books with being an actual great writer. These do exist – in a small account – and I, granted with a minimum sense of reality, do not include my own self in this selected list. If I did so, for some reason, I would not tell anybody because immodesty is offensive and along it, the just mentioned dumbness would be showing their claws. 

As for the authors – men and women – that have gone rich writing books of mediocre quality – fully consciously – there’s no reason for criticizing. Quite the contrary. They are quite clever. They’re winners. They knew exactly what they wanted – to win a lot of money – and they did what was necessary to obtain this goal. They’re pragmatic men and women, good managers of themselves, stunts of psychologists and marketers with a large sense of what pleases and what doesn’t, not only the reading public, but also the editors – these attributed mediators between the talent and the public.  

Without an editor there’s  no deal. Printing, advertising and distributing books is an esoteric science, expensive and risky. Someone has once said that the writer and the editor must do as a chicken: it’s not enough to simply lay the egg, one must cluck it. But it’s only for the hen that this has no costs. Editors need an elevated flair, better than airport drug detectors dogs - a flair rather mercantile than literary – to avoid that their printed products don’t end up stranding and provoking monumental gastritis. Basically, editors are booksellers and not officials at the Ministry of Culture, in charge of increasing the country’s education. Only on exceptional cases do they release respectable – yet financially stinky - literary pieces. On top of it all, the Estate isn’t rich enough to assure editors that all their stranded books will be reimbursed by the national treasure. There are many other priorities for the day rather than raising the spirits of writers that see their work being rejected. 

In 2005 I published, on my own account, a novel – “Cryonics” (Editions “Inteligentes”), about cryonics applied to human beings. We all know how serious the Cryonics chapter is to the book of Science, dedicated to study the effects of extremely low temperatures on living and non-living beings. The iceness interests the researches of speed of electricity in various materials, as well as the spatial research, the research on ovule and spermatozoon banks and many others. 

As for human beings, Cryonics ended up interesting the more “visionary” minds which found promising to inaugurate a separate branch of Cryonics to study specifically the freezing of human beings. Such “visionaries” – maybe it would be wiser to say “enthusiasts”  - imagined that if a man, not too old, had an incurable disease and an imminent death, there would not be anything wrong on freezing his body right after his natural death, as if he was a spermatozoon or an ovule - instead of letting it be buried or cremated. Kept on a close to zero degree – in which the agitated atoms become almost entirely static- there would be no decomposition, right? 

“But the individual would already be dead! How to resuscitate a frozen dead body? Being dead, his soul is no longer present! Where would we gain it back to reintroduce it on the deceased?” the spiritualists, wrathful, would say. 

Based on this hope, not morally reprehensible, the “utopic enthusiasts” began to imagine all the possible techniques to freeze a person right after dying, avoiding the addlement, especially of the neurons. They imagined – using only their logic, misleading several times, because inobservant of factual details – that if a living being remains frosted in a way that its cells do not rot, paralyzed by the coldness, then it is possible that some decades later, when science and technique are both very advanced, this living being can be defrosted and manipulated for regaining life. The damage caused by a prolonged sleep would be fixed by the future science. Something somewhat similar to watching a movie on DVD, pushing “pause” and then coming back to continue watching the same movie. If nothing has rotted when extremely frozen, why would it be impossible to “resuscitate” it a few decades later? Everything will depend on the future techniques, which will be way more advanced than the current ones. 

This expectance for a human being that is aware of his closeness to the grave, or to the cremation, has a considerable secondary psychological effect: it is much more comforting to know that you’re going to lose consciousness in a surgery table and maybe – at least, maybe – wake up in a more scientifically developed future, than to know with absolute certainty that you’re going to die no matter what, and be buried or burned in a crematory, until there isn’t much of you left that can’t fit into a small casket “If the cryonics don’t work, well, nevermind. I’ll be dead already and won’t even know about it. It is like falling asleep for a risky operation.” Something much more flavorful than the certainty of the upcoming death, with its frightening “nothing”, or Hell. In fact, it’s a similar circumstance to the bets of lottery. “Probably I won’t win anything this week, but I can win next week. And my investment on the freezing technique will not be too grand. The only harm, in case cryonics don’t work, will be of my inheritors with the cost of the whole procedure. If it works, then the disadvantage will be greater – but not to me! - because the heirs will have to give me back part of my fortune which was distributed to them!”

Let us see now the technical side of this idea and then the discouraging conclusion to which I was led. 

There is no doubt, as I’ve said, that the extreme low temperature of cryonics – negative 196º Celsius – avoids the decomposition of the tissue in, let’s say, 99%. However, this iceness does not only produce positive consequences. There is a negative side to it: with the freezing, the water inside the cells of our body turns into ice crystals and swell; and, since they’re crystals, they are provided with edges and these end up piercing the cellular membrane and the precious liquid inside the cells without which is impossible the “new life” pours from the cells. Once the defrosting takes place, there would be billions of cells completely unusable. This is the major technical obstacle to the efficacy of cryonics. 

A new hope was born some years ago, though: arctic frogs congeal during winter, remaining dead, apparently. However, with the coming of Spring, they “wake up”, ready to continue their “complex” biological cycle: eat and copulate – because these ugly cretinous can’t think of anything else. To embrace such task of resuscitating, the organism of a frog from the Arctic - the Rana pipiens (“leopard-frog”) - produces a type of sugar that stops the water from the cells from turning into ice and with that the swell which provokes the cellular injury does not occur. Therefore, the cells remain frosted, glazed, but without the flare. And without it, all the cells will conserve the indispensable water inside them. 

This is what the cryonics adepts wanted to hear. The other obstacles would be manageable, as for example, the exaggerated legal prohibitions, which require that the patient is “totally” dead in order to begin the preparative for the freezing, with the replacement of all the blood for glycerol. This legal requirement means keeping a technical team in prompt, and this waiting can last for days. At the very moment that the heart stops beatings, a marathon against time starts because every second is precious. If the brain is deprived of oxygen for more than a few minutes – the exact number is a subject of discussion – the neuron starts to fester, which would preclude the cryonics to take place. And that is because who wishes to be frosted to wake up in a few decades also wishes to be as lucid as he was before passing away. 

With the excellent news that a few frosted frogs can return to life, it would be enough for the cryonics fans to strive to synthesize a substance that once introduced into the patient right after his death would prevent the water inside the cells to turn into ice. Without ice, I must say again, no dilatation and no rupture of cells. 

At this point of the enunciation, I must admit that my biggest hope, when studying the subject and writing the romance, was not so much in propitiating a person with incurable cancer, for example, a few more years of life after his “resuscitation”. That would  be too much work and money to have just a few years of life again. My “secret ambition”, “unconfessable” – not exactly aimed at my ownself – was the perspective of a much wider and omnibus thing, a nearly physical eternity. How is that? I will explain. 

If the patient, after decades of “cryo-preservation” was to wake up clearheaded and happened to be an exceptional scientist – an Einstein, or equivalent – with a huge luggage of knowledge and original thinking, it would be useful to humanity that he lived – lucid, lucid! – two hundred, three hundred or more years, with iterant additions of new neurons – truly drawers that store up information – which would add new knowledge to the already existing ones. 

Where would we obtain these new neurons? Through embryonic stem cells, capable of transforming into any kind of cell - including the neural ones. Even the most brilliant and clever heads grow old and weak. “Mean and stingy” Nature has this limitation. It insists that no one may go beyond 130 years. If this happens to take place, we will be seeing a living mummy, blind, mute, deaf and bewildered. 

Indeed, even the best brains do grow old, unfortunately. However, with periodical additions of new neurons – even with the occasional necessity of surgical interventions on the skull – with such neurons “eager to work”, the human mind would take a tremendous shift ahead. Back to the great physician, an Einstein three times more capacitated in terms of neuron quantity certainly would have a lot to teach us.

At this point of my meditation, I received a bucket of cold water directly at my speculative enthusiasm. I remembered that – as most people know – no cell is immortal. Neuron is a cell. And what’s more: new neurons, obtained through embryonic stem cells, would be “baby cells”, totally ignorant. They would need to learn to speak, to read, to go to elementary school, to secondary, undergraduation and post-graduation before being able to help and add something new to the old scientist. Old neurons, although wise, would be growing weak and dying at the same time that the “dumb kids” would be sprouting in his brain, erst privileged. This recurrent “barbarian invasion” - as has said a certain philosopher, when referring to every new generation - would keep taking place at the cerebral cortex. 

Since I ignore any possibility of making the neurons immortals, sadly, I don’t see now, in cryonics, a major use to it than for the patient to continue the life that he had before being frost, living, after “waking up” again, the years that he would have normally lived if he hadn’t been grasped by the mortal malady. That would probably be a few years more, given the means of future medicine. Nothing more. Only a slight “stretch” after a long “respite”; and not centuries of accrual. 

I insist: even if a person can indeed “resuscitate”, without damage – which is already a tremendous technical feat – “the risen” would still grow old every day. If he would recurrently receive the implant of embryonic stem cells capable of transforming into neurons, these would be, as I’ve said, “empty boxes” that would require a fill starting from zero. As the years would go by, the grand scientist would not be himself anymore, because his old and wise neurons would be dead. Einstein would no longer know that he was born in Ulm and that he is German, unless some taught him that. Gloomy, isn’t it? 

If there is a God that deliberately created such a special creature, “at His image” – the beast man – it appears that it was not in His intentions to put in the Earth a greedy, proud and not reliable being, that one day would try to live forever and maybe swipe His power. Not relying entirely on his special creature, He implanted in its brain neurons of limited duration and stamped these invisible words: “Perishable article. Expiration date: 120 years. Advisable  to consume well before the expiration time.” 

This is, for now, the discouraging future of cryonics. But my novel is good, or at least illustrative. It’s a pity that it hasn’t been propagated. To hell with modesty. 

(16-9-2012)

 

The era of mediocrity. Part III. Modern Art

Finishing my previous article, n. II, of the series “The era of mediocrity”, I classified Pablo Picasso as more a sophisticated psychologist and expert in marketing than artist. I never considered him a great painter because – in my sinful ignorance – I consider it the indispensable qualification of any painter to be able to paint very well. I repeat: very well. A very uncommon talent, and perhaps unreachable with dedication only. Such as  “musical hearing”, a natural gift. It is really not easy to reproduce with accuracy a face, a horse in motion, the human body in less conventional positions, the movement of ocean waves, a waterfall, etc.

Of all items of generic “era of mediocrity” – chronologically short or enduring – the one that demanded the greatest effort from me to read and pin down was the question of what is art: How to analyse the reaction of the public in front of a painting or sculpture, the unexplainable outburst of feelings of beauty or the vast nomenclature that appeared after Classicism? Anyone who wants to understand the meaning of Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Expressionism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Concreteness, Abstraction, Primitivism, "Pop Art", "Minimal Art", etc., will face enormous difficulties to establish frontiers between various 'schools'. Additionally, to further complicate a slippery topic, one will have to take into account the “post” this and that, because the artistic species are always restless. 

However, there is a common trait of all these movements: the more modern the work, the less the “effort” for the artist. In other words: the more modern the painting, the higher the degree of (effortless) abstraction, subjectivism, appreciation of quantity over quality, and the need of marketing. If by mere joke, or to prove an artist’s prestige, one person who never painted anything before could get a canvas and quickly paint some lines and request Picasso to sign the work. This painting, in less than a minute, would value millions of dollars, and prove that it is not the painting that matters, but the “brand”. The most “knowledgeable” of famous painters, perceiving the above painting, after confirming Picasso’s signature, would perhaps say that the painting once again proved the versatility of Picasso’s talent.  

Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting while alive. The few people that bought his paintings, for a cheap price soon after his death, had the greatest financial interest in proclaiming the geniality of the artist. There is no doubt that Van Gogh was an extraordinary human figure, but it is bewildering that his work only became so valuable after his death. A proof that “financial psychology”, if we want to name it, has an enormous impact in the value of artwork. One can ask how the genius of the Dutch artists, while still alive, could be so well-hidden from all the experts at the time, that it was necessary for the work to change hands to become valuable? The art traders, who know the art of trade, have better “art eyes” than the art scholars?  

                        I would feel more comfortable if I knew that the geniality of Van Gogh was discovered while he was still alive. He was a man of suffering, tragedy, who only inspires sympathy. One detail: he could paint. His good character, sensibility and personality deserve the highest respect, but his example is a proof that money contaminated and dominated the world of art. Paintings and sculptures became much more a financial subject – similar to the actions of corporations – than a subject of art in the real sense. The explanation of why I have included art in my series of articles about mediocrity is because money made the arts mediocre. 

Leonardo Da Vinci took five years to paint the “Mona Lisa”. He would paint some few hours a day, and many days devoted to perfection of details. In any way, a considerable time to paint one work. By contrast, Picasso said, as quoted online, “Give me a museum and I'll fill it”. As a museum is often very big, only a very fast and tremendously “abstract” painter would fill it alone. With some twenty or thirty paintings a day, he would be able to achieve that in a few months. This proves that what mattered to him was pure quantity, and a declaration by the artist that there was, in those few strokes, some  deeply emotional “meaning”. So deep that only he could feel it. Believe it if you can.  

One modern art observer, Tom Stoppard, said that the only criteria to distinguish a painting from a modern sculpture were the following: if the work is hanging on the wall it is a painting, if you can walk around it, it is one sculpture.  

Richard Schmid, probably knowledgeable on the topic — as he figures in art webpages — said “I honestly believe that art students from the next century will laugh at the movement of abstract art. They will be amazed about such a step back in the world of art”. 

Al Capp, another commentator, with a stronger style, would say “The abstract art is the product of the ones without talent, sold by the ones without principles for those immensely stupid”. 

Another commentator of modern art went as far as saying that “Trying to understand modern art is like trying to follow the plot in a bowl of alphabet soup”.  

And, finally, what says the prince of painters, Leonardo da Vinci? He said “Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there isn’t art”. Elitism? No, simply respect to the “other side” of art, its receiver: who sees it or hears it. The spontaneous reaction of the public cannot be denied. 

In other words: without the “hand” of the real artist, the subjectivism of the painter is not enough, even if he truly feels the emotion — the great excuse for the modern painter, who relies only on what he feels, not what the public perceives. 

As a rough comparison, a poet who stutters terribly can not complain about not having won a contest of poetry declamation, even if he is the most intelligent, inspired and motivated, which could even make his stuttering worse. He may well use his inspiration, which could be immense, to write verses. He is not less of a poet for his speaking problem. He will be a great poet, not a great speaker. I make this comparison, perhaps ruthless, to demonstrate that what matters more in the artwork is the impact that it creates in those who see it and listen to it. In a classic piano concerto, a technical and emotionless pianist might sweep away the audience and may be considered a greater pianist than the one that's terribly emotional, sweating and moaning, who plays it all wrong and almost beating the piano. 

If what matters is the emotion of the artist – and not the product of his hands – lets imagine that science had invented a machine capable of capturing the degree of emotion and inspiration when a musical piece is performed. A new type of machine with attested efficacy, similar to lying detectors nowadays. The difference is that the latter detects the presence of a lie, and the former would prove the sensitivity of the artist. Lets explore this possibility.  

Announced, not modestly, is the arrival of a new musical genius in the country, a foreign pianist — so brilliant that few listeners would have the capacity to understand the profoundness of his art. His representative would declare that the inspiration of the artist could not be artificial, because in his arm, there would be that machine which proves the maximum degree of feeling a person can endure. In the advertisement that would precede his inaugural concert, there was a warning that people without an exceptional degree of sensibility and musical knowledge should not even buy the tickets because they probably would not be able to “capture” the profoundness of an art hidden under such simple appearance. The secret of that great artist would be in exerting an aesthetic and philosophical wealth that no Brazilians would have noticed before in Brazilian folk music. The refusal of the artist’s representative to sell tickets to everyone would even increase the demand for tickets.

On the expected day, with the Municipal Theatre packed, attached to the artist’s arm in a video recorded ceremony, the “detector of honest emotionality”. After impressive silence the artist starts playing, with one finger only: “Jingle bells, jingle bells
Jingle all the way. Oh, what fun it is to ride
In a one horse open sleigh. Jingle bells, jingle bells
Jingle all the way.
Oh, what fun it is to ride
in a one horse open sleigh…”. 

The audience, shocked, holding their laughter but afraid to be taken as ignorant, remains with serious faces and observes the enormous screen, connecting the “detector of honest emotionality”, hoping for a bad “emotional result” that would allow the hoot awaiting in the throat. The machine, however, confirmed the highest artistic emotion that a human being could feel. The extraordinary inspiration of the artist would be proven. With that, the public would only disclaim their own opinions: — “I am really tremendously ignorant!” and if the artist would suffer a stroke and would fall dead soon after finishing his concert, there would be a long theoretical discussion about the genius of the pianist and the reasons that made him chose such melody and not another one. — “What is the meaning of the bells and the horse in the song?” and so on. 

Exaggeration, surely, in such an example, but in substance it is what happens with the excuse that the artist has to express only what he feels to externalise his art.  

In painting, everything was fine until Classicism, when a technical innovation outside the artistic world changed the peaceful atmosphere that valued the art to paint the things as they would be presented to the eyes of people: photography. With a simple “click” it was possible “to copy” anything, with the precision of lines and balance of proportions that not even Leonardo Da Vinci would reach. The spread and improvement of photography was the salvation of various artists who, notwithstanding its potential sensitivity, had no natural ability — nor the patience — to reproduce on a canvas what met the eyes. 

The path was then open — and paved —, for people that admired the arts, who would emotionally identify themselves with art and would like to be part in this mysterious world, full of seductions. Including females. The women of that time – the late 19^th and early 20^th century – would feel a special attraction towards the “artists”, impetuous and barely constrained by conventions. Nowadays, probably, they prefer the “artists of finance” and from mass sports, a lot more profitable, I mean, attractive for them. The painters were, by then, almost always men. 

The world of art — when sincere and authentic — has a really interesting face. Its intuitions are often accurate. The canny politician from Bahia, the late Antônio Carlos Magalhães, used to say that it is insanity for a politician to attack the artistic class. One should never do that. Freud confessed that he rarely reached any discovery before a poet. The true art has this advantage: it reaches, “not intentionally”, but by intuition, areas not yet reached by science. It flies, while the scientist walks. 

With the advent of photography, there were the ones who were only “clever”, looking for an easy and quick way to success and fame, and its by-product: money. An artistic “democracy”, allowing every dare-devil without enough talent to paint, “to show off”, call attention. Besides, the more shocking the work, disharmonious to the real appearance of objects, the greater the “scandal” and capacity to grab attention, with commercial input. For the more sceptical observers, who would say that there was only audacity in there, and not art, two replies would emerge: 1) who wants the exact reproduction of a landscape or object shall take a picture; 2) in art, what matter is the artist’s feeling, not the material product of that feeling. 

Pablo Picasso was the one to advance most openly the argument that what matters in painting and sculpture is the artist's emotion, not what we know as “mere reality” For him, the painter can even paint with his eyes closed, as long as he is “inspired”. The public should not be concerned with appearance. They need to “feel the same way the artist felt”. And he would say with great conviction — extraordinary psychologist that he was — that some millionaire had begun to buy his paintings, hence causing enormous value of any work signed by Picasso. He would go as far as saying that he was not sufficiently rich to have a “Picasso” in his own house.  

Lets have a look at some quotations by him obtained online:

“I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them”.

“Painting is a blind man's profession. He paints not what he sees, but what he                       feels, what he tells himself about what he has seen".

 “The people who make art their business are mostly imposters”.

“The world today doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?”

“To draw you must close your eyes and sing”. 

“Who sees the human face correctly: the photographer, the mirror, or the painter?”

Considering all this, what explains the endurance of modern art, its great economic value, even when it is shocking and conflicts with the visible reality?" 

To me, the explanation is at the artist’s personality. In its audacity, its strength, “charisma”, “strong personality”, as found in Picasso, the great psychologist. Or in integrity and compassion, as in the cases of Vincent Van Gogh and his friend Paul Gauguin. It is impossible to read the biography of those two without being move by such sensitive souls. Did they know how to draw? They knew enough, without pressing themselves too hard about copying real objects. 

The character of an artist “contaminates” his work, both positively or negatively. It strongly impacts the acceptance by the public. Even the political orientation matters. Picasso himself benefited from that. In general, he was likeable. Had generous ideas and was outspoken in his opinions, as one can see in the quotations above. If he had been right-winged, or fascist, he would have never been considered a famous artist. “Guernica” pushed him. The same happens in other arts: the personality of the artist “contaminates” his work, up or down. 

Abstraction is the most fertile ground for philosophy. I think that, for at least a long time, the human being will still demand a degree of virtue, difficulty and work in every art. In sport competitions, in the circus, in cinema, writing short stories, novels and poetics, it is expected that the artist expresses himself with ability surpassing the average. It is not acceptable that the artist only “feels” beautiful in his own mysterious “box”, writing only non-sense, or texts incomprehensible even to the author himself. Hence the deeply-rooted general prejudice against modern art that does not even please the eye and, intellectually, may mean anything: — “It is too easy. Even I can do that...” 

Now, a short note about music. Of all types of art, I think it is the one that is the least susceptible to deception. The musical mediocrity cannot stay afloat for too long, because it can be evaluated within minutes. It sinks, because there is no financial advantage to keep it up if it does not please anyone. You only need one minute of listening to a new song, to know if it is worth it or not. The abundance of compositions and the size of the public are such that it is not worth spending time with the marketing of music that no one wants to listen to or purchase. However, with modern art, there is a restricted market of rich buyers, turning paintings into a reserve of value, in case the name of the painter is well known. The painting is material, touchable, concrete, it is there, as if it was a debt claim. As for music that no one wants to listen to, it is mere noise, it does not capture anyone's interest, it is impossible to transform it into a gem. 

Only regarding jazz I have some doubts. The majority of the people do not like it, because it does not have an identifiable melody. In my view (perhaps I’m ignorant on that), jazz should be used only as a technique of composition. The musicians could be improvising endlessly but when, by chance, the wandering performers "would come across" a new melody, they should develop it, composing a “normal” song. What makes me reluctant to be negative about jazz is to know that the writer José Verissimo - which I consider very intelligent - enjoys this music style. If he is a fan of this style, maybe it must have some beauty that eludes us. 

In the next article, we will talk about literature, and in the following about politics, especially international politics, whose mediocrity towers over any other kind of mediocrity.

(2-4-2012)

Russia and China are rigth by vetoing sanctions to Syria

This bold negation is one of the few cases when the use of a veto showed itself as virtuous at the UN´s Security Council. 

The bad faith of USA, Israel, France and England is an affront, data venia, to our intelligence when, at the UN´s Security Council, they distort (childishly, one might say) what the Charter of the United Nations says in its Chapter 7, articles 41 and 42, by answering to interests which are merely strategical and political — especially with regards to Israel.  

The representatives of those countries start from the premise – very clear to them – that the planet is made of ignorant and semi-illiterate people who don´t even bother to read what the aforementioned Charter clearly states. The Charter is being falsely used as legal grounds for the deposition of Syria´s president, someone who is a loyal political ally of Iran. Once the Syrian government is undermined, Lebanon will be subject – whenever it is deemed convenient by Netanyahu´s “hawks” -  to an occupation by Israeli troops without much resistance from Hezbollah, an entity which is currently supported by the Syrian government.  

In summation, the fall of Assad shall be a triple victory to the current Israeli government, since it would eliminate three of its adversaries: Hezbollah, Syria and, afterwards, Iran, which has already started to be economically suffocated. Also, there will be an additional advantage – the fourth one: deflecting the world´s attention from the need to create the Palestinian State. In the current pre-war tension in relation to Syria and Iran, “there is no atmosphere for talks regarding a distinct border separating Israel from a future Palestinian State, isn´t that right?” Thus, under Netanyahu´s diplomacy, the “lack of timing and environment” for the talks with the Palestinian Authority shall be justified. 

Once Bashar Assad is deposed from power, the political turmoil which will take place in the country for months or even years — as can be witnessed nowadays in Egypt and Libya —, Iran will be even more isolated and weakened in its pretension to contain Israel´s thirst for regional dominance, as it already has military, conventional and atomic dominance. With the pretext of the fear of an Iranian nuclear attack — something which is not only almost impossible but also remote, considering that in such an attack millions of Palestinian Arabs would also die due to the physical proximity — the Israeli government hopes to benefit from the “Arab Spring”, believing with good reason that by “hunting” Bashar Assad the new Syrian government which would succeed him would be different, at least with respect to Iran. If Israel firmly supports the people who are now revolting, it will demand some political retribution afterwards in exchange for the help. 

Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations talks about “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION” — among countries, evidently! - and not between a government and revolting people inside the same country. When article 40 mentions “parties concerned”, it obviously refers to “countries” and not to internal political forces, such as Syria´s case, as well as Libya’s previous situation. When NATO´s airplanes gave aerial support and technical ground assistance to the revolting Libyans, Libya was neither at war nor threatening to invade any country. Nevertheless, it was attacked, partly in an oblique way, with the excuse of defending human rights. Even the noblest aspirations can be perverted by political interests. 

It is certain that Gaddafi was a dictator, but the mere fact that a country is ruled by a dictator does not authorize other countries to depose him. It is even possible that a local population is satisfied with a strong rule and perhaps fears that a different government, supported by other powers-that-be, might make things worse, even if in a more democratic way. Has there been, by any chance, a public poll in Syria — made by an international entity — in order to know the level of approval or disapproval of? The answer is no.  

Let´s suppose that more than half of Syria´s population supported Assad´s government before the internal conflicts and consequential fights. What is the legitimacy that other nations have to freeze Syrian financial resources deposited abroad? 

Let´s imagine — only imagine — that in Israel the government became dictatorial for any given reason — even for safety issues — and that part of its population revolted against this through street riots, which were then followed by repression. Question: would it be possible for other countries, especially the Arabs, to “strangle” Israel by forbidding its foreign trade and threatening its existence through bellicose interventions? Any Israeli lawyer would say that such interventions, whether economical or military, would be a violation of Israel´s sovereignty. That is exactly what has been happening with Syria, with a false reading of the articles from the Charter of the United Nations. 

Has there been a partial rebellion – partial, nonetheless — of Syria´s population against a dictatorial regime which started at the time of Bashar Assad´s father? Yes. But wouldn´t it be reproachable for the government to violently repress such manifestations? Yes, if such manifestations were really peaceful. In order to know this, it would have been necessary to have most speeches from that time recorded. Once the physical conflict between the revolting people and the government started, there were hundreds of deaths in both sides.  

In the American Civil War, in which the South wanted to segregate from the North, there was a great carnage, with about 600.000 dead people. The conflict lasted 5 years, from 1861 to 1865, and the country was ruined. Nevertheless, no other country interfered in the conflict, respecting local sovereignty. They thought: “It is up to the Americans to decide if the nation shall be divided or not into two parts”. This respect for sovereignty is being violated these days by attempts to crush the only two countries — Syria and Iran — that try to contain the predominance of a regional atomic power which has decided to keep the nuclear monopoly in the region and unfortunately is being led with arrogance by its current government. Do I need to mention any names? 

Let´s imagine that, when George W. Bush was elected with all that controversy surrounding the decision about the recount in Florida, Al Gore, the candidate of the Democrats, did not accept the defeat, deeming it suspicious, and an internal conflict, similar to a civil war, started from that resulting in hundreds of deaths. Would it be licit — we might ask — for China and other countries to vote sanctions and possible armed interventions against America, with the grounds of avoiding a civil war in American soil? Any American would consider this a tremendous absurd. However, that is exactly what they are trying to do to Syria these days. 

In international politics it is always advisable to suspect the words of the speakers from the countries which are interested in intervening in foreign internal conflicts. The USA, the guardian of democracy, was never interested in restoring democracy in Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina in their so-called “lead years”. Why? Because it wasn´t in the “American interest” that leftist government spread all over South America in a time when the Soviet Union was powerful and a threat. They perfectly knew about all the violent repression performed by the military governments, which even tortured dissidents, and did nothing to depose such governments. It all depends on the current interest, and not on the concept of democracy. This, by the way, is a word that has a very elastic meaning, so much so that countries from Eastern Europe which were under Stalin’s domain were called “Democratic Republics”. Occupied Germany, for example, was self-proclaimed “Democratic Republic of Germany”. 

Even though I am in favor of a future world government in which each country yields part of its own sovereignty to a central world government — avoiding the use of force to solve quarrels between states — the unquestionable fact is that today, in the current legal conformity of the world, sovereignty is still the rule. This means that it is up to each country to decide by itself how to structure its own government. If, for example, Brazil decided to restore monarchy, become a socialist country or an extreme rightist, other countries would not be able to impose sanctions against such decisions because sovereignty is in the people, and not in the opinion of other governments. All these things I am saying are elementary. But this “elementary” is being violated right now at the Security Council. 

What astonishes the most in this deformity of what´s written in the Charter of the United Nations is that such interpretations are given by diplomats with many years of study (as well as sophisms). The current American representative in the Security Council, Susan Rice — not related to Condoleezza Rice — got to the point of saying that if voted by the Security Council, the application of article 42 of the Charter — the one which supposedly allows for a military intervention in Syria —, such intervention would not occur. It would be a mere threat, something of a “paranoid nature” — in the words of the illustrious interpreter of the Charter of the United Nations —, the Russian argument against the approval of new sanctions. We might ask: if there is an authorization of an armed intervention, why assume that such an authorization would not be used after all the effort used to obtain it? 

With or without international lawfulness, everything points to the conclusion that Bashar Assad will be deposed, maybe even “hunted” Gaddafi-style if he doesn´t escape in time. Due to his own lack of ability — a man with little political talent who should have insisted with his father to have the right to follow optometry, the career he had previously chosen —, the situation reached a point where a diplomatic solution is no longer possible. The impression he gives is that he has a tendency to delegate the unpleasant tasks, such as the task to deal with “impolite” rebels. The delegation of responsibilities in the command of governments is inevitable but can be fatal if used without criteria because the delegates can abuse violence when they are sure they will not be held accountable for their own actions and decisions. 

The movement against  Bashar has grown too much, and in politics what counts is the version, not the fact. Even in international politics, this haven – or zoo – of fallacies. When a ship starts to sink, rats and passengers flee. If a fall is almost certain, changing sides becomes worthy because there will always be a place or position in the winning side. With or without legal reason, it is more than probable that Assad will be dethroned and the creation of a Palestinian State will be postponed to a distant and uncertain future. 

So that the reader can take his or her own conclusions regarding the articles of the Charter of the United Nations related to the real civil war which is currently happening in Syria, they are transcribed below, as found on the internet. As you can see, the traditional concept of sovereignty is still in place. 

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1.     All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

(July 23, 2012)

Günter Grass Merits a Second Nobel, the Peace Prize

The aforementioned German novelist and poet, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1989, is being attacked, principally in Germany — and, of course, by the Israeli government and its global ramifications —, because on 4-4-12 he published a poem in a German newspaper with the title “What Must be Said”. I read the entire poem on the site of Luis Nassif and it can also be seen in various newspapers, for example, “The New York Times”, “La Reppublica”(Italian) and “El País”(Spanish). The poem in question is not included in this article as it has almost 3,000 characters and would occupy too much space.

After reading and re-reading the poem, which describes the most elementary truth — although erroneously described in the media as an unjust and anti-semitic attack —, I decided to quickly read the first volume of his novel “The Tin Drum” which, years ago, I purchased in a second-hand book shop. This is because Günter Grass, solely for reason of his poem, would merit even a further Nobel Prize – the Peace Prize. His maligned poem is a warning in favor of peace, nothing more. When he says that an Israeli “preventive attack” — hyper-preventive... — could light the fuse for a Third World War, he is only stating the obvious. Something so evident, however, that it required courage on his part, for reasons that everyone knows and are discussed in further detail below.

Even if Iran eventually manages to fabricate a nuclear bomb, it would not take the initiative of attacking Israel. Why not? Because this would kill — in the explosion or resulting radioactivity — thousands of Palestinians, bearing in mind the physical proximity between the two populations, Jewish and Arab. Besides this, an arbitrary attack by Iran would be its death sentence. Entire cities would be annihilated in two days, given that not only Israel would retaliate with unlimited nuclear and conventional forces, but it would also have the unconditional support of the USA, obliged (!?) to protect Israel even in its most audacious pretentions.

If, in certain aspects, Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be immature — the asinine vote-grabbing statement of “wiping Israel off the map” — a political blessing for Netanyahu, who desperately clings to this disastrous phrase in order to remain in power — the Iranian president would not be so crazy as to bring about the inevitable destruction of his country, his family and himself. It should not be forgotten — with respect to this nonsense of dropping a bomb on Israel — that Ahmadinejad does not decide everything alone. He shares power with ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the rest of the conservative Islamic majority that is in no hurry to be incinerated alive. Therefore, there is no risk of an imminent nuclear attack on Israel. However, I repeat, it is of interest to the Israeli government that this false idea prevails, politically useful as it is backed by a very powerful collective sentiment: fear of going back to an already distant past, when the Jews really were persecuted throughout Europe. This kind of fear no longer exists, although it could come to exist if the Israeli government persists in its bravado and impositions.

The poem is question has shown that Grass is a man of courage, something that should be greatly valued in a writer. If Grass is possibly an anti-semite, I need to verify this aspect in his novels because, in the poem, he shows himself to be neither anti-semitic nor unjust. To the contrary, in the poem he only tells truths that are highly evident to anyone who is politically impartial and accompanies international politics, even if this is only through reading newspapers. And if the trouble is taken to also read books, in addition to his opinion expressed in the poem, such truths are confirmed. Incidentally, in the poem, Günter Grass even shows a certain degree of affection for Israel, on stating “…the state of Israel, to which I am bound and wish to stay bound”.

It is one thing to be anti-semitic — discriminating against a race — and quite another to be against the current policy of the Israeli government, morally indefensible in the treatment that it has given to the Palestinians, principally in the Gaza Strip. Günter Grass mentions this evident inequality that is impossible to hide. The global press, largely influenced by Israel, always shows itself to be demanding with respect to the issue of human rights, although it only occasionally describes how the Palestinian Arabs are treated, expelled from their land, deprived of almost everything, without the most basic human rights and without any possibility of appealing to international justice, as they are not technically part of a State. And if it depends on the current Israeli government, this (i.e., the creation of a Palestinian State) is never going to happen. Why? Because if frontiers were definitively established, there would be limits on the territorial growth of Israel, which would no longer be able to receive the thousands or millions of Jews that still live outside Israel. With well-defined frontiers, how would it be possible for continued occupation of the West Bank?

Governments change, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, or even the center. At times they demonstrate solidarity with minorities and weaker neighbors, whereas at others they are tremendously egoistic, clinging like limpets to an arrogant and outdated nationalism, as is currently true in the case of Israel. However — the invitation is open — if Israel had the moral courage to seriously propose that “eternal conflict” with the Palestinians be resolved by an international court — promising, beforehand, to accept and comply with the decision made — this country, Israel, would be remembered, for decades, as a genial innovator in the field of International Justice. Netanyahu himself would be consecrated as a “pioneer of great international vision”.

Evidently, for a decision of such importance to be satisfactory as far as both parties are concerned, the international judges — who, in this case, will not be able to be Arabs or Jews — should be expressly authorized to apply the principle of equity. Not only in delimiting frontiers, but also in establishing territorial and financial compensation that also satisfies those expelled Palestinians who still wish to return to Palestine. It is possible that a certain percentage of these individuals, already integrated into the economy of the countries where they have found refuge — Jordan, for example — prefer reasonable indemnification, rather than “starting all over again”, returning to Palestine.

What is currently lacking on the international justice and politics scene is a leader of exceptional discretion, prestige and persuasion capacity. However, if no name comes easily to mind, it will be necessary to find one. Without delay. There are notable jurists in the international area who could, from an intellectual standpoint, assume this role, but they apparently have qualms concerning the certainly virulent maelstrom in which they would be involved, given that absolute sovereignty is still an addiction that attacks the meninges. Such jurists prefer the studious and respected calm of their private offices. However, it is impossible that, on a planet with almost seven billion inhabitants, there is not a single individual with the authority and desire to grasp, in his bare hands, this torch – or cactus – of an international justice that really functions. In other words, who is able to decide on great conflicts and impose compliance with his decision, without delegating “execution” of the sentence to a Security Council poisoned by dozens of the economic, political and strategic interests of the countries represented therein.

Barack Obama would be a name that initially comes to mind for a mission of this importance, although a disappointment to the most enlightened public opinion because he has shown himself to be incapable of saying “no!” to any request made to him by Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama is tremendously worried about the possibility of losing the financial and media support of the powerful Jewish lobby in the next election. Unfortunately, in a democracy — any democracy — money has an all-too-important bearing on the outcome of every election. It is like a skeptic exclaiming: — “Damn!, up to what point are executive positions bought, via electoral campaigns?!”

Surfing arbitrarily on the internet, in a blog or twitter “Billy Leew...and his fables” — I am a little ignorant of these technologies —, I watched a video of a group of Jews demonstrating, in English, against the Netanyahu government. They were dressed in black, bearded and authentically angered at the course currently taken by Israeli politics. Revolted at the type of treatment imposed on the Palestinians, one of them, on whom the camera specifically focused for him to be heard, even stuttered with emotion. With a high degree of objectivity and convincing sincerity, he insisted, in English, that it is necessary to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism, only the latter being worthy of the support of the Jewish people. He said that Zionism is an adulteration of the Judaism of the Torah, which rejects the domination of other peoples. He went on to say that there are many people in Israel who are against the policies of Netanyahu, although fear prevents them from demonstrating against the government, as there would be reprisals. This distinction between Zionism and Judaism should be well studied and disseminated, in order to prevent the Jewish people from becoming the victim of an error of interpretation by the rest of the world. The German people cannot be identified with Nazi doctrine, or the Italian people with the delirious ideas of “Il Duce” Benito Mussolini.

Following publication of the (“accursed”) poem, the media came to emphasize the “shady past” of Günter Grass because, when an adolescent and up to 17 years of age, he served in the army of his country and, in the last year of the Second World War, was even a member of the Waffen-SS, a type of personal guard of Hitler. Besides this, it is alleged that he had hidden this fact for many years. Data vênia (with due respect) as jurists are accustomed to say, this is nonsense that should not be mentioned by more learned people (they should be forgiven, because miracles do happen...).

Prior to judging someone, it is necessary to study the circumstances in which the person in question was raised and educated; the period, the political regime of the country in which he or she lived, and so on. In the case of Grass, it is necessary to remember that he was born in October 1929. After reaching ten years of age, his childhood was spent under the Nazi regime. This was a dictatorial regime with no freedom of the press, in which Hitler shaped the thinking of a people very bitter at their defeat in the First World War, with the loss of territories and onerous war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. These were difficult times for the Germans, with spiraling inflation, unemployment and a Nazi propaganda machine that used and abused the “right” to lie. Without putting their life at risk, nobody was able to say anything to the contrary of that imposed by government propaganda.

Just read some of the phrases uttered by Hitler, during the period that he dominated Germany and shaped the thinking of adults, children and adolescents: — “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed” — “It is not truth that matters, but victory” — “Strength lies not in defense but in attack” — “Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong” — “The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary” (in this case, the Jew – my observation) “and taking care that nothing will divide that attention” — “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force” — “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it” — “The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category” (the Jews, Treaty of Versailles, English, Americans, Russians, etc) — “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.

In my opinion, the thoughts outlined above, their content never questioned in the totally subdued press, explain why Günter Grass and almost all his colleagues at the time thought in accordance with that planned by Nazi propaganda. Irrespective of this, there is no evidence that this author personally pushed Jews into the gas chambers to be poisoned.

Why did Grass only reveal this unpleasant past — it was not his fault, but that of the untruthful and unopposed propaganda — a few years after receiving the Nobel Prize? Because he knew that his enemies and those jealous of him would take advantage of this. Now, however, in the month of April 2012, he said what he said in the poem in question because his conscience could no longer be silent in the face of the unjust treatment of the Palestinians. And he said another “irrefutable truth”: that the threat of the Israeli government bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is both pernicious and hazardous for world peace. The danger is remote and a pretext. Genuine fear? No. If Israel has the right to be fearful — of the always idiotic “wiping Israel off the map” — Iran also has the right to be fearful of excessive Israeli force, given that it has conventional and nuclear armaments capable of imposing its will on the entire Middle East.

Now, a few words directed to the German people and government: there is a need, right now, to put an end to this carefully cultivated feeling of blame for that which occurred in a Germany dominated by Hitler. Nazism was a homicidal doctrine. Speaking in public against the regime meant a beating, prison or a bullet in the head, without any legal “frills”. Remorse should be cultivated not by entire nations, but only by those individuals who, by their own free will, actively — and having options —, inflicted suffering on their fellow men.

It is my belief that 80% or more of Germans living today did not experience or participate in any way in crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. The war ended in 1945. There is no reason to feel remorse. Principally when the careful nurturing of this remorse may have political motives, of dubious legitimacy. Of the remaining 20% of Germans, only a few thousand acted with full awareness — and perhaps sick pleasure —, when they committed the atrocities revealed after the end of the war. Yes, these individuals are in need of remorse in order to diminish the burden on their souls. The remainder, no. If the someone’s grandfather was hanged for being a criminal, why should his grandchildren bear the burden of a guilt complex?

In the concentration camps, some Jewish prisoners, in order to eat a little better and not be killed, collaborated with the administration. These individuals, probably with troubled consciences, were known as “kapos”. They did this to avoid death, at least an immediate death. They knew that if the prisoners refused to perform that wretched work, they would be killed anyway, and that the collaborators would be killed with them. It would be a useless kind of heroism. They thought that if they managed to get out of the concentration camp alive, they would at least be able to try to reunite their families, or what remained of them, scatted throughout Germany and the rest of the world. A Jew who is the grandchild of one of these “kapos” also has no need to cultivate remorse. I reiterate: a guilt complex is a personal, individual matter. Countries may even feel better making compensation payments, but they are under no obligation to be eternally burdened by a feeling of blame, automatically endorsing the erroneous policies of the descendents of their victims.

Summing up, there is no need to censure Günter Grass for having kept quiet about what he did when he was an adolescent — at a time when it was practically impossible to express one’s own opinion — and even less need to censure him because, in a poem, he warned the world that a merely “preventive” attack against another country, especially in the Middle East, would significantly increase the danger of a conflict of immense, perhaps global, proportions. Besides this, he should not be censured because he reminded us of the unjust situation suffered by the Palestinians, or because he emphasized the inequality of a country, heavily armed with nuclear weapons, granting itself the right to bomb another only for the reason that, one day, it may possibly produce a nuclear weapon. The stupid phrase of “wiping Israel off the map” is merely a senseless bluff. It would not be totally illogical if a journalist — a little crazy —, were to raise the possibility that Ahmadinejad receives a monthly pension from Netanyahu only to occasionally repeat this phrase that is irresponsible but so politically lucrative for his very-much-alive adversary, although damaging to Iran which, as a result, loses international support.

Finally, Grass deserves praise for wisely suggesting that it is the responsibility of the UN to decide on what to do regarding the “eternal conflict”. For my part, I would like to add that a judicial UN rather than a political body — the Security Council — would be the most recommendable for distancing, once and for all, the danger that threatens all of us, even far from this region that produced three gods. Gods that, although one, became transformed into three mutually hostile enemies from 1948 onwards.

(9-4-2012)

Ear versus elbow in “Ultimate Fighting”

I take the liberty of speaking about a subject which is less intellectual but of a somehow public interest, considering how sports have a reasonable role in the moral education of citizens in general. They help in strengthening character, stimulate self-discipline, trust, tenacity. They serve as a legal escape for the aggressive component which is part of our animal inheritance. And I don´t need to mention their benefits for health, when practiced. An athlete who let´s himself be dominated by gluttony, alcohol, drugs, sloth or uncontrolled sexual activities can say goodbye to his stardom in sports. If he becomes a champion in anything, it will not last long – pretty soon some other athlete, perhaps less talented but more disciplined, will defeat him in the field, court, ring or “octagon” (in the case of “mixed-martial-arts” or, as this sport is commonly referred to, “ultimate fighting”).

I have always enjoyed fighting sports, even though I have practiced them too little and with little talent. My resistance has never been very good, so I got tired very soon – maybe a lack of practice. I tried some boxing when I was in middle school and some judo when I was a judge in the countryside city of Cachoeira Paulista- SP. The judo gym which I attended a few times was located in a neighboring countryside city, Lorena. There, I noticed that some of my rivals fell too easily, possibly to please “Your Excellency”. It was a time when judges were highly respected — a status which I am sure they will regain as soon as the current low tide is gone – an image problem which has been caused by many factors, most of them which cannot be blamed on the magistrates themselves.

Especially because of my appreciation for fighting sports, I feel motivated to exteriorize some concern with the progress — or regress — of martial arts. Everything good can become bad, depending on the path it takes. Balance, in everything, is rare and precarious. In this article I´m going to talk about “ultimate fighting”, a sport which attracts more and more enthusiasts. Even women are now watching and fighting it – something which is rather contrary to the nature of women. I presume, however, that part of these ladies who attend this kind of competition are there only to keep an eye on their boyfriends or husbands, since the competition for men is always fierce, even when it is subtle. I´m only saying this because women in general are less appreciative of scenes full of blood and violence.

Why have I “evolved” to the current “ultimate fighting”, which is much more violent than boxing, judo and other eastern types of fighting? Because “ultimate fighting”, in its initial phase many years ago, was just a show, a simulated fight full of spectacular “flying kicks and scissors”, strikes and somersaults, everything artistically arranged. No punches or kicks were allowed – only soft blows with the forearm were permitted. Using the elbow? Not a chance! And there was always a hero and a villain in the ring – sometimes two of each, considering the artists, I mean fighters, sometimes fought in pairs (two against two). Sometimes there were even dwarves fighting. When it was determined that it was time for the “bad guy” to hit, the “hero” suffered motionless, almost as if he was a sleepy zombie. All of a sudden the “zombie” became a beast, beating the hell out of the “villain”, grabbing him by the beard and submitting him to a much deserved humiliating punishment.

The audience, however, got tired of the joke, which was also something that offended our intelligence. Some Brazilian fighters, the brave Gracie family, decided to roll up the sleeves of their kimonos and give an end to the jokes. One of them went on to live in the USA, opened a gym there and in that place started the real fighting. A Brazilian pioneerism, which was needed because human beings really enjoy watching a good fight. Personally, I am not a big fan of soccer, but every time there is a fight between players I am unable to change channels. The same thing happens when I see a fight among politicians in any country. I bet the ratings increase in direct proportion to the punches and kicks performed by illustrious representatives of the people. On TV news shows, scenes of fighting in congresses are always announced in the beginning of the programs, but only shown in the end – a technique used to keep the audience watching the same channel.

“Ultimate fighting” has won — perhaps it even comes to beat football (soccer) and basketball in number of athletes — because it filled a void which has existed since gladiator fighting was forbidden in ancient Rome, a time when gladiators really killed each other with metallic sharp weapons. With the advancement of Christianity, fights with gladiators were forbidden in the government of Constantino I, in the year 325, although many say that the fights did not stop completely.

More recently, in “ultimate fighting”, a new weapon started being employed, a weapon which can also cut even though it is made of bone. I am referring to the elbows. By the way, archeologists say that Neanderthals used the skeleton´s femur as a weapon in tribal fights, because it was a weapon which combined lightness and toughness. Some blows with a bone in the skull of an adversary would cause instant defeat or at least unconsciousness of the opponent.

A few days ago, going through the website Terra.com, I found an “ultimate fighting” scene where part of an athlete´s ear was actually “cut”, or better yet, maimed by the elbow of the adversary. The repeated and violent blows to the ear acted like gardener´s scissors and a piece of cartilage even flew away, as if it was trying to escape the fury of the murdering elbow. The ears were provided by Nature to help in listening. They act like acoustic shelves and must, therefore, be preserved and never cut or sliced in fights. And the fact – attested by the aforementioned scene – is that an elbow can rip off ears, at least partially. And I am not sure they can be sewed back on. Anyway, that incident must be seen as a warning that the use of the elbow should be banished from “ultimate fighting”, at least when applied against the head and neck. Most of the bleeding which is seen in fights — scenes which unconsciously stimulate barbaric feelings — happen after cuts caused by the tips of bones. And that´s without mentioning the elbow hitting the eye, something which might even cause blindness. If somebody has ever become blind because of a blow by an elbow, such news would probably never be released, since it would affect the dissemination of a sport which grows every day, generating millions of dollars.

Someone might argue that since “ultimate fighting” is a kind of martial art in which everything is allowed, it would be a contradiction to create rules which would diminish the main attraction of such a sport: to reflect real life fighting. When two men fight in real life they don´t care about rules. They simply don´t want to get to the point of killing their opponent, of course, since such occurrence would lead to complications and even prison. Therefore — would say this hypothetical arguer —, why not allow the use of the elbow, even if it causes a more frequent spill of blood?

Against such an argument we can say that “ultimate fighting” is already being partially civilized. Not everything is allowed. Kicks in the genital area; biting; eye poking; pinching; suffocation with the hand; punches in the back of the neck; knee strokes on the head when the opponent is in all fours; all of these kinds of blows have been forbidden for a while. Such restrictions have not turned “ultimate fighting” into a sport of “sissies”. Punches which break noses and high kicks which knock down the opponent are trivial. This form of fighting is much more aggressive than boxing, which has never been accused of being a “sissy” sport and has always been considered violent. The disadvantage that boxing has when compared to “ultimate fighting” lies in the excess of limitations in the former, mainly the prohibition of the use of legs as a weapon and the impossibility of fighting on the ground. Due to creativity and constant innovation, “ultimate fighting” is much less monotonous than boxing and that´s why it is easy to predict that boxing will lose audience to its new main competitor. “Ultimate fighting” is, in summation, much more dynamic and “real”.

The “thirst for blood” or for “hyper-realism” in fights — a presumed justification for the elbow blows on the face and skull — might lead some crazy person to suggest, in the future, that fighters who are really in need of money use knuckedusters or switch-blades – in clandestine spaces – because in “real life” these weapons are actually used. I´m saying this because violence can become an addiction, requiring regular and growing doses of adrenalin.

The daily (or so) vision of blood on television, from fighting, stimulates the use of violence when, for example, there´s an altercation during traffic – or anywhere else. Media often reveals aggressions which happen in nightclubs where a customer is beat up almost to death after arguing about the price of drinks or because he looked in a certain way to an accompanied lady.

I know that in good martial arts gyms the teachers constantly warn the students that they should not fight in the streets. They insist that they are not fighting but in fact playing, and obeying the rules of the sport. The danger of the bloody violence is not, however, in the behavior of students, but in the fact that such fights are seen on television without any supervision from the teachers. Rebellious youngsters — unemployed or who earn an indecent salary —, after watching fighters covered in blood being applauded and admired by their talent may feel stimulated to use violence as a means to be admired and valued – a fair and humane wish, but accomplished in the wrong way.

From 1934 to 1967 cinematic production in the USA was guided by something called the “Hays Code” — the name derived from its creator, William H. Hays, one of the then leaders of the Republican Party. This “code” was conceived by initiative of the association of movie producers because they were worried about the negative influence of movies in the moral formation of the country. Since the “Code” ended up exaggerating in its prohibitions — a natural tendency when it comes to censorship — it started being gradually disobeyed until it was finally replaced by the current “rating by age”, which started in 1967.

Not considering its exaggerations, the “Hays Code” had its good side, so much so that it lasted more than thirty years. Among its prohibitions were the following: it would not be authorized the exhibition of any movie which degraded the morality of the audience, inducing them to be in favor of a crime, evil or “sin” (?!); a murdering technique should be presented in a way which would not allow its replication in real life; no details of brutal murders should be shown; the techniques of thefts, breaking into safes and banks, blowing up of trains, mines and buildings, or some such, should not be detailed; wounds should show just a minimum amount of blood, even in war movies. The list went on and on, extensively and exaggeratedly for modern parameters, but had its positive side: the attempt to rid the audience from the influence of evil, whose existence nobody can deny. The Code, in summation, had the concern – even if admittedly exaggerated – of getting the audience away from vulgarity, the disrespect for the law, religion and family values (it was also advised for the movies not to show adultery under an attractive angle). Even scenes of hanging and electrocution had to be softened, with no attention to detail. Prolonged scenes with blood were generally not well seen by the aforementioned Code – the same thing happened to movies in which criminals got away with crime.

I´m not talking here about reinstating censorship, but instead trying to demonstrate that movies and television can influence a lot, for the good and for the bad, to elevate and to downgrade the tastes and attitudes of the public. And fighters with broken noses and bleeding eyes, mouths and foreheads do not stimulate delicate or civilized feelings. Especially considering that these are the places in which blood is the most abundant and where an opponent will probably focus his blows. The only thing lacking is for the referee to ask the audience whether the defeated fighter should be killed or not by turning their thumbs up or down.

I believe the prestige of every sport, when put on a graph, has a sinuous curve. When it reaches a maximum peak — in a scale of bloody violence — the excess may generate a progressive feeling of repulsiveness (something which already existed even before the use of elbows), leading a more reasonable audience to look for distraction in sports which have a more humane value. Not to mention the physical integrity of the athletes.

Before finishing this article, here´s another suggestion which I´m sure will not be followed: when the athletes are exchanging punches while standing up and one of them is knocked out, it would be fairer — as well as more coherent to the purpose of getting to know who the better fighter is — if the referee stopped the fight and counted up to ten in order to find out if the “knocked-out” fighter is really out of combat. If the athlete was able to get up in reasonable conditions before the end of the countdown, the fight would then continue – such as it is done in boxing fights. This would be good because it is not uncommon for a less strong or less talented fighter to end up hitting the chin of the other fighter when attempting an awkward and reckless series of punches. With such improvement, the “luck factor” would no longer be so important, and the audience would not be so disappointed. After all, the purpose of the fights is to determine the strength and ability of the fighters, and not their luck – good or bad – when exchanging punches and kicks. This suggestion, however, will never be accepted because it would make “ultimate fighting” look like an imitation of boxing, which is an unnamed crime in the sports war.

For now, I´m going to keep on watching my fights. However, I have to say that when the red liquid starts covering an exhausted and almost blind athlete´s face, stimulating the executioner to keep on and on with the punishing, I feel like changing channels.

Everything in excess becomes boring. That´s what happened with the “Hays Code” and might as well happen with this modern version of the gladiators fight.

(March 5th, 2012)